Australian Human Rights Commission Media Release
Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner has welcomed the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court, which upheld the finding that One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson unlawfully breached the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) with her comments directed at Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi.
Senator Hanson launched the appeal in November 2024, after Justice Angus Stewart found a 2022 social media post by Senator Hanson was contrary to section 18C of the RDA.
The Full Federal Court today dismissed her appeal, deciding Senator Hanson’s post was reasonably likely to have been “profoundly and seriously offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating” to Senator Faruqi and to “people of colour who are migrants to Australia or are Australians of relatively recent migrant heritage, and Muslims who are people of colour in Australia.”
‘This is a landmark decision,’ Commissioner Sivaraman said.
‘For years, the RDA rightly protected Jewish and Sikh people from racial discrimination and vilification, but there has been uncertainty about how the law applies where people experience racism through overlapping aspects of their identity.
‘The Court has now provided much-needed clarity, strengthening protections against racism and helping build a more inclusive Australia, one where we are all safe and respected. This is a particularly important decision at a time of alarming increases in racism towards migrants.’
In this matter, Commissioner Sivaraman appeared as a friend of the court, or amicus curiae, to assist the Court on legal questions concerning the RDA’s interpretation.
In its judgment, the Full Federal Court said: “The issue of intersectionality was the subject of helpful submissions by the Race Discrimination Commissioner, which drew attention to a long history of learning around the nature of identity and intersectional discrimination.”
The primary judge correctly found that “Senator Hanson’s anti-Muslim comments were … directed at Muslims as immigrants and as being different to Senator Hanson’s conception of what it is to be Australian”. In the circumstances of this case, “Senator Hanson’s anti-Muslim rhetoric was directed at Muslims because of their race, colour and immigrant status, as much as because of their religion”.
‘This decision reflects the reality of how discrimination and vilification are experienced in the real world,’ Commissioner Sivaraman said.
‘Everyone has different characteristics that make up who they are. For many people, their cultural, ethnic and religious identities are deeply interconnected. They cannot always be separated, and people are often targeted for multiple reasons at once.
‘The Court has recognised that racism can manifest in complex and overlapping ways, and that the law is capable of responding to those realities.’
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless independent voice – holding power to account and delivering journalism that matters.
Running this site isn’t cheap. Rising costs mean we need your support now more than ever. Every donation, big or small, keeps our servers running, our writers working, and our stories free for everyone.
Donate here:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund for hosting and future improvements.
Thank you for standing with us. We couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
Apparently Hanson has said that she is considering a High Court appeal.
So, I’m just wondering whether that is the kind of issue that the High Court could take up.
Any clues from someone more knowledgeable than me in that regard?
Hanson says she is going to appeal to the High Court of Australia which is just another instance of her grandstanding and seeking media attention.
There is no automatic right to an appeal in the High Court; the court only hears cases that present significant questions of law or of public importance and this does not fall into that category.
The High Court will not appreciate being used a political device by the likes of Hanson.
She will have to seek special leave and establish that the federal courts made a mistake in the application and interpretation of the legislation and only then may they grant approval for her to fight her case. This is most unlikely and the Court has no obligation to hear her case and they will undoubtedly see it for what it is: a political device to gain Hanson media attention.
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia unanimously dismissed Senator Hanson’s appeal regarding her 2022 social media post directed at Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi. The court upheld the original 2024 judgment that Hanson’s tweet telling Senator Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan” breached the Racial Discrimination.
Hanson will, of course have to pay costs but the question really is, should these costs be palmed off on to the One Nation Party or should they rightfully be paid by the litigant herself?
Thanks Terry, that’s what I suspected.
There can be an appeal to the High Court under Sec18c of the Racial Discrimination Act but Hanson would need special leave. My understanding is that special leave is usually only granted to the victim, not to the perpetrator.
Thanks Carol.
It will be interesting to see whether she tries to go ahead with it anyway.
I guess that’s a “piss off back to the drawing board” to Pauline Hanson then.
Hanson is not seeking justice; she is seeking self-vindication. With any luck, the High Court will not grant her leave to appeal. It’s time for her to accept that society has changed and matured.
This decision emphasises that there is sufficient legal protection for those seeking shelter from racial, ethnic and religious vilification. Thus, Julia Segal’s anti-semitism definition and all that it implicates is redundant and should be expunged from public documentation.
“Bet,bet, Oim nott u rasilist. Oi juzt hev a moild disloik of knot-whoite poipel.”